How is it that Obamacare will make insurance more expensive for you? The idea is that by expanding the pool of people buying insurance, especially since you're forcing younger, more healthy people to buy insurance, that it will bring the average cost of insurance down. This is based on a wealth of information gathered from other country's universal healthcare policies.

No, devaman is right about the premium part.

The young are healthy, and have a low premium. The old are not, and have a higher premium. When you expand and virtually put everyone in the same pool, there is a premium average. So with this new pool, you have to see that premiums are higher for the youth and lower for the old, generally.

I love the analogy Chuck brought up about the government being too involved in saying what we do with our money. What a slippery slope! Yeah, that pesky government with their roads, and safe drinking water regulations and meat inspections. If I wanna drink ecoli tainted water that's my right as an Amurican! The free market will sort it out. Chuck, your idea of the government eventually saying what car you can but is ludicrous and totally knee-jerk reactionary! The idea that the government would make you buy a certain car is much more in favor of right wing ideals than left wing. As a matter of fact it's exactly the idea that right wingers like, letting private interests influence public policy. It's pretty much the standard definition of the dreaded "F" word that the right wing is often associated with.

Plus, a car is not a necessity. Those things that(I think) the government should be involved with are all basic necessities that ,dare I say it, every American should be entitled to like for instance a free appropriate public education, fair wages, and oooh access to affordable, decent healthcare.

Pretty soon, the government will mandate that everyone in America must buy a car made by an American owned company and mfg'd in the US or face a penalty at the time of purchase of a foreign car of $x because it is in America's interests to keep manufacturing jobs in the US.

Well you don't have to worry about this happening because there isn't one manufacturer that is truly American anymore. Especially since the Toyota Camry is the most manufactured car here in America.

The young are healthy, and have a low premium. The old are not, and have a higher premium. When you expand and virtually put everyone in the same pool, there is a premium average. So with this new pool, you have to see that premiums are higher for the youth and lower for the old, generally.

Do you see what I'm saying?

I totally understand that. For some it will go up, some down. Although, the idea with the younger people not currently buying insurance, $1 is an increase from $0, right? Older people value health insurance more than the young and healthy, for obvious reasons. My point was that, on the whole, the cost of healthcare SHOULD go down. This, however, is contingent on the insurance companies not gouging us people and simultaneously bringing down their administrative costs. The research shows that country's with a universal healthcare policy, pay less as a % of GDP for healthcare, and that's just a FACT, not opinion.

I am sick and tired of the governement telling me what I can and cannot do, especially with my money. I mean, where does it end? The long term effects of this ruling can be rather scary when taken to the extreme. Pretty soon, the government will mandate that everyone in America must buy a car made by an American owned company and mfg'd in the US or face a penalty at the time of purchase of a foreign car of $x because it is in America's interests to keep manufacturing jobs in the US. This ruling basically says the government can mandate anything they want against individual citizens if the penalty they attach to non-compliance can be considered a tax and there is a legitimate government concern as a basis for the legislation.

You realize these things are called tariffs, right? It's not at all odd to have a tax on foreign goods to give an advantage to domestic products.

I totally understand that. For some it will go up, some down. Although, the idea with the younger people not currently buying insurance, $1 is an increase from $0, right? Older people value health insurance more than the young and healthy, for obvious reasons. My point was that, on the whole, the cost of healthcare SHOULD go down. This, however, is contingent on the insurance companies not gouging us people and simultaneously bringing down their administrative costs. The research shows that country's with a universal healthcare policy, pay less as a % of GDP for healthcare, and that's just a FACT, not opinion.

I have my health insurance through my company and we got a notice late last year that if Obamacare is enacted, expect our premiums to go up approx 30%. Yup, thats more an $1 increase.

Chuck, your idea of the government eventually saying what car you can but is ludicrous and totally knee-jerk reactionary! The idea that the government would make you buy a certain car is much more in favor of right wing ideals than left wing. As a matter of fact it's exactly the idea that right wingers like, letting private interests influence public policy. It's pretty much the standard definition of the dreaded "F" word that the right wing is often associated with.

Actually, the federal government already tells you what kind of car you can buy. Sure, they don't say, you must buy GM (although the bail out of the UAW -- ahem, I mean GM -- was a roundabout way of taking my money to allow other people to buy cars from people who happen to be favored by the party that controlled the government at the time), but they say, all new cars must have a rear view camera (at an extra cost of a few hundred dollars to the purchaser), that they must meet certain fuel efficiency requirements, etc.

I also have no idea what you're talking about "private interests influencing public policy". That's what voting is. For example, public employee union members don't seem to get it, but it's the private sector taxpayers that pay the salaries of public employees, not just the Koch brothers or the monopoly man. I have decided that I want to get the best price possible for their services and not pay for superfluous positions like guidance counselors for elementary school students. Should I find that education is worse off for it, then maybe I'll change my mind later. Either way, I'm voting in accordance with my own private interests. But I don't know, maybe you've found group of all wise, all knowing central planners that have the answer to all those questions.

1

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

I have my health insurance through my company and we got a notice late last year that if Obamacare is enacted, expect our premiums to go up approx 30%. Yup, thats more an $1 increase.

I was obviously using the $1 to make a point, not to say that's what one should expect realistically. I can't speak to your specific case, but on the whole, most increases in costs would have to be coming from what I would have to assume are results of continuing to use private insurers, allowing big Pharma to run this country and any other provisions that were not agreeable to right wingers to bring down administrative costs in the industry.

My main point is that if you took every person in the US, like all 330M of em and averaged their cost of healthcare per year pre Obamacare, including all the people for which it is $0, then the average cost after it is in effect, the average cost will be less than what it was previously.

Actually, the federal government already tells you what kind of car you can buy. Sure, they don't say, you must buy GM (although the bail out of the UAW -- ahem, I mean GM -- was a roundabout way of taking my money to allow other people to buy cars from people who happen to be favored by the party that controlled the government at the time), but they say, all new cars must have a rear view camera (at an extra cost of a few hundred dollars to the purchaser), that they must meet certain fuel efficiency requirements, etc.

I also have no idea what you're talking about "private interests influencing public policy". That's what voting is. For example, public employee union members don't seem to get it, but it's the private sector taxpayers that pay the salaries of public employees, not just the Koch brothers or the monopoly man. I have decided that I want to get the best price possible for their services and not pay for superfluous positions like guidance counselors for elementary school students. Should I find that education is worse off for it, then maybe I'll change my mind later. Either way, I'm voting in accordance with my own private interests. But I don't know, maybe you've found group of all wise, all knowing central planners that have the answer to all those questions.

I was obviously using the $1 to make a point, not to say that's what one should expect realistically. I can't speak to your specific case, but on the whole, most increases in costs would have to be coming from what I would have to assume are results of continuing to use private insurers, allowing big Pharma to run this country and any other provisions that were not agreeable to right wingers to bring down administrative costs in the industry.

My main point is that if you took every person in the US, like all 330M of em and averaged their cost of healthcare per year pre Obamacare, including all the people for which it is $0, then the average cost after it is in effect, the average cost will be less than what it was previously.

Wrong on all accounts. Prices are not going up because of evil pharmaceutical companies and evil insurers. You have high demand for an expensive and scarce service. Prices will most assuredly go up. There is also no way you can bring down administrative costs in any significant way if there is a third party paying. Let me put it this way, if I had to personally had to pay for your necessary medical care, I damn well want to know what your doctor visits were for, why you needed that operation, why it cost so much. That will require a lot of paper work whether that third party is me personally, an insurance company or Uncle Sam.

Rather, what will bring prices down are governmental price controls. What do you think cutting Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements to doctors is designed to do? And what happens when you put a price ceiling on something? You get less supply of that something.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Wrong on all accounts. Prices are not going up because of evil pharmaceutical companies and evil insurers. You have high demand for an expensive and scarce service. Prices will most assuredly go up. There is also no way you can bring down administrative costs in any significant way if there is a third party paying. Let me put it this way, if I had to personally had to pay for your necessary medical care, I damn well want to know what your doctor visits were for, why you needed that operation, why it cost so much. That will require a lot of paper work whether that third party is me personally, an insurance company or Uncle Sam.

Rather, what will bring prices down are governmental price controls. What do you think cutting Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements to doctors is designed to do? And what happens when you put a price ceiling on something? You get less supply of that something.

I'd rather have a single payer system anyways. That being said, reimbursements for Medicare need to flattened so that you don't see abuses in the system of people being pushed towards treatments that have higher reimbursement rates. Again, here the argument is flatten the rate, broaden the base. Specialist are overpaid in our system, GPs are underpaid. Shift that so that specialists get less and GPs more and you will have more GPs and greater access. Less specialists could hurt, but usually a bit of a wait to see one isn't gonna kill you and if it is, the GP will let you know and I would hope that there could be a way to allow more needing patients skip in line. I'm over-simplifying, but you get the point.

We need more people in the political section of the forum more often. I don't want to go to a pure politics message board because they're always overrun with people. When someone says something and then 20 people give the same retort, it's hard to really have a discussion. Plus I feel people are more irresponsible/trollish on those boards.

We need more people in the political section of the forum more often. I don't want to go to a pure politics message board because they're always overrun with people. When someone says something and then 20 people give the same retort, it's hard to really have a discussion. Plus I feel people are more irresponsible/trollish on those boards.

Let's keep #9 where belongs (for an nonrestrictive price).

I agree. I thoroughly enjoy political debate, even if I completely disagree with the other posters, that's ok. We're all Devils fans and I can get over other posters being on the other side of the healthcare debate. Having discussions like this can only raise awareness in the minds of people and, hopefully, a knowledgeable public will make better decisions. It's also good to hear individual stories because when you just look at data and numbers, you can lose sight of the human factors in these things.

I'd rather have a single payer system anyways. That being said, reimbursements for Medicare need to flattened so that you don't see abuses in the system of people being pushed towards treatments that have higher reimbursement rates. Again, here the argument is flatten the rate, broaden the base. Specialist are overpaid in our system, GPs are underpaid. Shift that so that specialists get less and GPs more and you will have more GPs and greater access. Less specialists could hurt, but usually a bit of a wait to see one isn't gonna kill you and if it is, the GP will let you know and I would hope that there could be a way to allow more needing patients skip in line. I'm over-simplifying, but you get the point.

Couple of points. In a sense I agree with you on the single payer system. That is, if we've come to the point where it's accepted wisdom that everyone is entitled to medical care, might as well go all in. However, a true single payer system is still a price control system. In fact, it's even worse, as private transactions between doctor and patient are illegal. That's why a lot of wealthy Canadians will go to Buffalo or Michigan for medical care.

Also, while doctors do push patients towards expensive services or diagnostics to pad their own wallets, they also do it because of plaintiffs' attorneys. Whatever the reason though, you are crossing over into the territory of price controls when you say that some doctors are overpaid and some aren't. Sure you can make a value judgment in coming to that conclusion, but writing that judgment into the law comes with consequences. While I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, she is right that true government control over healthcare creates "death panels." (BTW, I'm fully in favor of death panels if I'm the one footing the bill).

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Couple of points. In a sense I agree with you on the single payer system. That is, if we've come to the point where it's accepted wisdom that everyone is entitled to medical care, might as well go all in. However, a true single payer system is still a price control system. In fact, it's even worse, as private transactions between doctor and patient are illegal. That's why a lot of wealthy Canadians will go to Buffalo or Michigan for medical care.

Also, while doctors do push patients towards expensive services or diagnostics to pad their own wallets, they also do it because of plaintiffs' attorneys. Whatever the reason though, you are crossing over into the territory of price controls when you say that some doctors are overpaid and some aren't. Sure you can make a value judgment in coming to that conclusion, but writing that judgment into the law comes with consequences. While I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, she is right that true government control over healthcare creates "death panels." (BTW, I'm fully in favor of death panels if I'm the one footing the bill).

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

While I certainly wouldn't call them "death panels", I agree that if you have a single payer system, you have to ration care to keep prices down. I'm all in favor of denying that an 70 year old person, who's got end stage liver disease or any terminal illness, get some radical $1M treatment. You have to draw a line somewhere. You have to say, hmmm, you might gain full mobility in your shoulder if I replace the joint, but if we go with a cheaper treatment, you will be able to live day to day with minimal pain, although your golf game may suffer. That's the trade off. If you want affordable, accessible care, you have to tell some people no.

Also, if gov't could provide better incentives for people to live healthier lives by focusing on preventative care, making PSAs about smoking, eating well, etc. that will help drive down costs by way of not needing them.

We could also aid that by trying to decrease obesity and diabetes by not subsidizing corn and as a side effect of that, subsidizing junk food/sodas, would be good, but that's a whole other discussion.

The austerity measures are not what's keeping them on life support, it's WHY they're on life support. Read what a real economist has to say on the matter: http://www.nytimes.c...ic-suicide.html

Ok, well, you may not care that a well respected group like the WHO says about healthcare, then I don't know what to tell you. I mean, I'm sorry, but it's fact that Cuba outperforms the US. Do you not believe the statistics on things like infant mortality rates that the WHO puts out? And you can bet a million dollars that if people could, they would buy prescription pills from Cuba just like they do from Mexico and Canada.

The issue in the US has never been that it's lacking in skilled doctors or that it can't perform cutting edge procedures, it's that the cost of that care is prohibitively expensive and when people don't have the insurance, they are forced to use the most expensive avenue of care, ERs. The argument for universal healthcare is nearly IDENTICAL to the right's argument for lowering taxes. Flatten the rates and broaden the base. That is EXACTLY what this bill does, except for healthcare coverage, not taxes. More people paying, a more even rate over the whole of the country.

While it is not the best bill, it's a step in the right direction. What really needs to be controlled is the cost of prescriptions, i.e. pills that are $5 here and $1 in the rest of the world, and providing a reasonable fee schedule for procedures performed.

Also, if gov't could provide better incentives for people to live healthier lives by focusing on preventative care, making PSAs about smoking, eating well, etc. that will help drive down costs by way of not needing them.

We could also aid that by trying to decrease obesity and diabetes by not subsidizing corn and as a side effect of that, subsidizing junk food/sodas, would be good, but that's a whole other discussion.

A fool's errand. Any government program to get people to engage in healthier behavior, short of bans on unhealthy living, will be about as successful as encouraging 15 year old girls to read Proust instead of the Twilight books.

Living healthy and eating healthy takes a lot of discipline. Pizza, McDonalds and beer taste a lot better than bean sprouts, tofu and unsweetened ice tea. Sitting on the couch and watching football or playing video games is a lot easier than going to the gym regularly and jogging two miles at six in the morning.

I've seen every PSA imaginable, and live in Micheal Bloomberg's NYC. I still smoke, drink, eat too much crap and exercise too little. It was even worse when I didn't have my wife around to cook some fish every so often.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

A fool's errand. Any government program to get people to engage in healthier behavior, short of bans on unhealthy living, will be about as successful as encouraging 15 year old girls to read Proust instead of the Twilight books.

Living healthy and eating healthy takes a lot of discipline. Pizza, McDonalds and beer taste a lot better than bean sprouts, tofu and unsweetened ice tea. Sitting on the couch and watching football or playing video games is a lot easier than going to the gym regularly and jogging two miles at six in the morning.

I've seen every PSA imaginable, and live in Micheal Bloomberg's NYC. I still smoke, drink, eat too much crap and exercise too little. It was even worse when I didn't have my wife around to cook some fish every so often.

lol. I get your point, but look at what's happened with smoking. A lot less people smoke now than 20-30-40 years ago. Getting the information out there helps. Yes, mcdonalds tastes good and is easier than finding healthy food, but why is that? It's connected to what I was saying about farm subsidies. Corn is VERY heavily subsidized and even insured. You may ask, are vegetable treated the same way? The answer is no, they're not. Grow healthy fruits/vegetables and you get no subsidies. Be Monsanto or ConAgra and grow sh!t tons of corn and meats full of hormones and are genetically modified, get a ton of subsidies. See how this works? lol. If one had incentive to eat healthy, one would more likely(not will) eat healthier. If healthy food was cheaper than mcdonalds, people would buy it more, period. But when you can get in 300+ calories for $1 at mcd's, why are you gonna spend $5 to get 300 calories from fruits or veggies?

As I said, the whole subsidies providing incentives to eat crappy food is a whole other discussion, but very related to health and healthcare.